Many people try to warn us about our diets.
In almost every case, they use confounding factors as a crutch to prove that they have a superior diet than ours. This “confounding factors logical fallacy” uses a loose association to confirm a diet’s benefits.
Confounding bias occurs when our results mislead us to think that one testing variable causes an outcome… but it was really a third test variable that caused a result…
And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, correlation is not causation.
This is an excellent short video showing a confounding factors example. We see why drinking coffee might have nothing to do with developing lung cancer:
This video goes broader and more into the weeds of broader logical fallacy – selection bias:
Punchline: I am SUPER leery of epidemiological, statistical or association study results when choosing the right diet for me. Instead, I dig hard to find scientific, randomized controlled studies that skip any confounding factors or selection biases.